Skip to main content

tv   FCC Commissioners Testify at Oversight Hearing  CSPAN  July 27, 2017 4:20am-7:02am EDT

4:20 am
chief of staff in 2015 after holding multiple staff divisions in eight divisions and special forces over the last 35 years. see his comments live at one p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. >> p sunday, on q and a, mark bow den talks about his bood 1968 rngts one of the longest and bloodiest battle is of the vietnam war. >> the way of hue shocked me because the sigh gon military command was so out of touch with the reality of what was happening in the streets. they literally got a lot of young americans killed, because what general west more land, you know, denied that the city had been taken. it was a fact, but he continued to deny it for nearly the whole time the battle was fought. and as a consequence would never concede the sheer number of enemy forces that were in the city. so small units of marines and
4:21 am
troopers were being ordered to attack positions that were held by overwhelmingly superior enemy forces in entrenched positions. >> sunday night, at 8 eastern on c-span's q and a. >> thanks to members of the fcc testifying on recommended changes to proposed communications legislation. they also discussed broadband access in rural communities, the future of mobile broadband and combatting skarms held by a house customers sub ke. this is two hours, the subcommittee on communications and technology will now come to order. the chair now recognizes herself for five minutes for an opening statement. i want to welcome you all to the subcommittee's hearing titled "a recite and reauthorization of the federal communications
4:22 am
commission." i appreciate the commissioners appearing to offer their testimony today, and we appreciate that we have been able to hear from you in advance of this hearing. the fcc has not been reauthorized since 1990, and its current appropriation is over $430 million. it is charged with the administration of the communications act, and under statutes vital to the functionings of our communications policy we must reexamine the core functions of the commission and restore a culture of humility that was lacking under the regulatory cloud left by the chairman. the fcc points a vital role in our increasingly technology dependent society. the subcommittee has released a discussion draft for consideration. i would be remiss by not discussing that neutrality, the commission's decision in 2015 to reclassify the internet as a
4:23 am
public utility was laced with the irony with putting the most innovative part of our economy with a 1930s era law. this gave new meaning to regressive. replies to comments are due august 18th. chairman pai, we hope you are keeping that we had whacker handy because it has a lot of work to do. title 2 reclassification has created a 5.6% reduction in isp network investment, will lead to great regulation and has generated tremendous uncertainty. however, i know there is disagreement, and while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had nothing to do with this, internet giants amazon, facebook and google recently joined with websites such as porn hub and dark money groups like for the future, demand progress and free press, for a day of action to claim
4:24 am
republicans will break the nets. let me be clear. republicans have always supported a free and open internet. let's not have any misunderstanding on that issue. we must move past the partisan rhetoric. ranking men pallone said in 2010 it is a job for congress in referring to the net neutrality rules and i agree. other issues confronting the commission include administration of the life line program, media ownership rules and pro sells reform, the gao released another report critical of the life line program on june 29th. it found that 36% of the program participants could not be verified for eligibility. over 6,000 deceased individuals were enrolled after their death, and numerous carriers approved eligibility for the program based on fictitious documentation.
4:25 am
life line continues to be plagued by significant deficiencies including the need for a hard cap. outdated media ownership rules and process reform issues also concern the committee. commissioner o'rielly noted that the fcc review of broadcast ownership rules released last august was, and i'm quoting, divorced from the reality of today's media marketplace, end quote. finally, process reform has been an issue of bipartisan concern for sometime. bipartisan bills have passed the house five of the last six years. chairman pai, you have taken positive steps, including the release of a fact sheet for any proposal to be considered at an open meeting in releasing the text of documents to the public in advance of a vote at an open meeting. however, more must be done to promote and sustain a culture of transparency at the commission on several other issues noted in the majority memorandum. i look forward today's hearing,
4:26 am
and at this time i yield the balance of my time to mr. ladd. >> thank you, chair blackburn. welcome to the fcc, commissioner. the internet is a great equalizer. it provides an open platform to empower innovation, expression of free speech as well as other inventions in history. by reclassifying internet, the fcc needlessly risks this great economic industry. title 2 opens the door to burdensome regulations that harm competition, threaten the investment in broadband needed to close the digital divide, and hold back the innovations such as 5g. i applaud chairman pai for initiating a proceeding to review this misguided reclassification. it is important for consumers not to conflate the harmful title 2 reclassification with the net neutrality principles some would suggest. there's strong support among the american people for a light touch approach to internet regulation and a strong
4:27 am
consensus on both sides of the aisle for net neutrality principals. it is my hope that this commission and congress can finally resolve the open internet issues and that we can work together in a bipartisan capacity. thank you, madam chair. >> i now recognize the ranking member, mr. doyle for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman blackburn, for holding this long overdue hearing today and thank you for the witnesses for appearing before us. it is my sincere hope we can make it a regular occurrence. i spent my time in congress and on this committee as a strong advocate of competition, innovation and opportunity. these are the pillars of a successful marketplace and the driving force of our economy. when we act to weaken them, we weaken our own economy and our country. chairman pai, in the time you have been head of this agency we have seen an agenda that is anti-consumer, anti-small
4:28 am
business, anti-competition, anti-innovation and anti-opportunity. right out of the gate the commission took a range of actions, including pulling back an investigation of anti-competitive zero rating practices and a mere progress report on updates to a program to bring broadband to schools and libraries. the commission reinstated the uhf discount for which seems to be no other reason than to enable an unprecedented merger between sinclair and tribune that would give the combined entity a foothold in nearly 80% of american households. the commission eviscerated competition for business data services in this country. your order concluded that a market as competitive, if it is served by one provider with the possibility of another one might enter at some point. i don't even see how this makes sense. the commission ended a program
4:29 am
that enabled poor people to get access to broadband, literally pulling service away from people who had already signed up. the commission is in the pro sells ses of eliminating the fcc's open internet order which as of this morning 12.3 million have written to you in overwhelming opposition. these rules are working. they've been upheld in federal court and they have promoted a virtual cycle of investment and innovation online. i don't think this point can be stressed enough. publicly traded companies are required by law to tell their investors the risks to their company. no publicly traded isp has made such a claim. however, many are line companies including netflix and snap, have claimed are eroding or eliminating these rules will, in fact, pose a threat to their businesses. you know, when i read your statement and you talk about investment and your concerns,
4:30 am
you only seem to talk about it in relation to isp investment. i'm concerned that maybe you just don't get it. the internet isn't just an isp connection to the consumer. it is a vast array of networks, services and applications. ignoring the rest of the ecosystem is to ignore the part of the internet that is the most vibrant and innovative. i'm deeply concerned that the fcc is on a wrong path, a path that will hurt small businesses, regular people and some of the most innovative sectors of our economy. on that cheery note, i will yield the balance of my time. >> i'm sorry, ranking member, what a superb opening statement you just made. one of the most important issues currently before the fcc is obviously net neutrality. we've heard a lot from net neutrality. opponents, about the impact of
4:31 am
title 2 on broadband investment, and while large isps tell the fcc title 2 has chill investment, their executives tell their shareholders a different story. the benefits of tigtle 2 protection to every other sector of our economy are enormous. free and open internet supported the creation of 10.4 million u.s. jobs in all 50 states in 2016. 86% of these jobs came outside of major tech hubs. despite the broad impact of the open internet on our economy, the fcc is barrelling down the road of eliminating these critical protections and making it clear to the american people startups and small businesses that their input is not valued nearly as much as that of washington's special interests. so i look forward to discussing this issue further and ask that my full statement be inserted in
4:32 am
the record. i also plan to discuss very directly with you, mr. chairman, the whole issue of rt in the intelligence community's public record -- statement. it is replete with references to rt, and i think we need to pay a great deal of attention to that. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. does the gentleman yield back? >> yes, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. i will say to my colleagues, we agree with you that the issues of the health of the internet ecosystem, the issue of net neutrality, the issue of title 2 deserve additional attention from this committee and we look forward to carrying forward with this. at this time i recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. walden, for an opening
4:33 am
statement. >> good morning. good morning to our commissioners and chairman, to our guest. american innovation in the internet sfas has revolutionized the world in everything we do and how we do it. from research and communications to shopping and entertainment, the internet is an essential part of our every day lives. given the debate over the rules for internet operations and consumer privacy, it is our responsibility on the energy and commerce committee to fully understand all sides of the internet governance issue. therefore, i'm announcing this morning that i'm convening a special energy and commerce committee hearing entitled "ground rules for the internet ecosystem" for thursday, september 27th, 2017. i am sending formal invitations to the top executives of the leading tech companies including facebook, alphabet, amazon and netflix as well as broadband providers including comcast, at&t, verizon and charter
4:34 am
communications, inviting each of them to come and testify before our full energy and commerce committee. it is time for congress to legislate the rules of the internet and stop the ping-pong game of regulations and litigation. make no mistake, given the importance of this public policy debate and the work we need to do as a committee, it is essential that we hear directly from the country's top internet and edge provider leaders who frequently speak out publicly about rules of the internet. it is time they came before us and directly shared their positions and answered our questions. with more than a month's advanced notice i'm sure they can arrange their schedules to accommodate our invitations. now, with regard today's panel, chairman pai, welcome and congratulations on taking over the helm of the fcc. commissioner clyburn, commissioner o'rielly, we're glad to have you back before us as well. thank you for the work you do. we begin a new chapter in the
4:35 am
history of the fcc, one that will shape some of the most important parts of our national economy, the talent industry, the video distribution industry and the internet. in today's hearing we begin to examine reauthorizing the fcc, and that's the first time since 1990 the fcc has come up for reauthorization. by any estimation, this discussion is long overdue, and today we continue conversation to make the fcc a model agency with proposals for a number of process reforms, many of which will sound very familiar because we've taken them up before in this committee. when we first took up these open government reforms i said it was not about who headed the fcc at the time, it was about improving transparency and public involvement in a public process. i believe that under chairman wheeler and i believe that just as much now under chairman pai. i was pleased to see chairman pai demonstrate his commitment to making the fcc's operations more transparent through action by initiating a pilot program to
4:36 am
publicly release the text of commission agenda items at the same time they're presented the other commissioners for a vote. a major his predecessor opposed. there are a number of matters pending at the commission, many of which we will discuss today. with the forward portion of the incentive option concluded, the next phase, the broadcaster repack, is under way. commissioners set forth an aggressive schedule to move all of the broadcasters impact by this auction. while i have every confidence that chairman pai will work to ensure consumers continue to have access to over-the-air television, concerns remain about the sufficiency of the 39-month timeline and the $1.75 million budget. i take these concerns seriously and will continue to work closely with the commission and my colleagues to make sure that over-the-air broadcasting and the viewers they reach on their main channel and on their translators are not adversely affect. of course, chairman pai has commenced a proceeding to return
4:37 am
the internet to the framework that made it the economic engine it is today. as we wait for the process to take its court, the future of the greatest economic engine of modern times is clouded with uncertainty, with the growing recognition the time is now for legislative action. we offered the way forward on net neutrality in 2015. i believe now as i did then we should work together to write bipartisan legislation to protect the internet from bad actors who want to use unfair advantage to block, throttle or in other ways engage in bad behavior. the american people deserve no rest. chairman pai, commissioner clyburn, commissioner o'rielly, thank you again. if others want to use the last 15 seconds, i happily yield. if not, i yield back the balance much my time. >> the chairman yields back. i recognize the ranking member of the full committee mr. pallone for five minutes for an opening. >> thank you. i would like to thank the fcc
4:38 am
commissioners for joining us this morning, the first fcc oversight of congress. holding quarterly oversight hearings. now that their own party controls the majority of the commission, we're six months into the administration and this is our first hearing with the new commission. i hope this is not a sign of things to come because the commission's own actions have shown the critical need for congressional oversight. to date most of the fcc's actions have ignored the needs of consumers. too often when given the chance this fcc has sided with large corporations to the detriment of hard-working americans. the commission started this year by making it more difficult for competitors to offer broadband to low income people through the lifeline program. it continued with a scheme to encourage more consolidation in the media industry which would eliminate voices from the air. last week chairman pai refused to commit to protecting the
4:39 am
funds necessary to close the homework gap as part of the popular e read program in our schools. then there's the alarming outright refusal by the fcc to protect the security of our broadband networks at a time when the russians and others are looking for new ways to break in. the highest profile example of the fcc siding with large corporations over small businesses and hard working americans is its attempt to eliminate net neutrality. a free and open internet is crucial for democracy by giving everyone an equal voice online. each of us gets to decide which videos we watch, which sites we read and which services we use. nobody gets to influence that choice, not the government and not the companies that run the networks. a free and open internet also allows small businesses to flourish. these small businesses, many of which are owned by minorities and women, are responsible for more than half of the jobs in the country today. if the fcc moves ahead with net
4:40 am
neutrality repeal, the consequences will be severe. the plan will have a chilling influence on our democracy, cut away our connections with each other and limit economic opportunities for the future. the fcc claims that net neutrality repeal is necessary because consumer protection might deter in network infrastructure. i hope that the commissioners really listen to the millions of comments coming in from around the nation and reconsider their dangerous plan to eliminate net neutrality. this is not only an oversight hearing today. the republican majority recently surprised us all with a 42-page reauthorization bill that had absolutely no democratic input and it is flawed. it slashes $18 million from the fcc's budget, the same agency having issues keeping its website up and running. this is not serious legislation and it does not bode well for any serious legislation being developed by the majority of this subcommittee on any major
4:41 am
communication issues. with that i would like to yield such time as she wants to ms. matsui that i have left. >> thank you very much, ranking member pallone and for yielding your time, and welcome to the commissioners. i represent sacramento, the capital of the state of california. it is essential to the way we do business. my constituents are extremely concerned about access to the internet, which is essential for innovation economy to thrive. in fact, i have gotten so many comments on my phones and e-mails in sacramento and here in washington d.c. everyone from small business owners to educators and librarians in my district have told me that they're counting on the fcc's net neutrality rules, and it is not just my constituents. it is americans across this
4:42 am
country, almost 11 million people have contacted the fcc about why net neutrality is so important. these are not just businesspeople. these are students. these are seniors. these are librarians, as i said before. these are people who use the internet every single day and want it to be there. i have to say this. chairman pai, i urge you to listen to these voices, millions of voices, and not roll back the progress that we have made. it is really important for the future of our country here. it is important for the future of our young people, and i truly believe that in this way if we stop this progress we will in essence stop the progress of our country. so i urge you to listen and i yield back the balance of my time. >> and i yield back, madam chairwoman. >> the gentleman yields back.
4:43 am
i will remind my colleagues, we have this hearing scheduled in march and gave up our day for the markup of the health care bill. we would have like to have had this hearing earlier in the year. that concludes member opening statements. the chair would remind all members that pursuant to the committee rules they have an opportunity to make their opening statement a part of this record. we want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements followed by questions from the members. our witness panel for today's hearing will include the honorable ajit pai who is chairman of the federal communication commission. the honorable mignon clyburn who is a commissioner at the fcc and the honorable michael o'rielly who is also a commissioner at the federal communications
4:44 am
commission. we appreciate each of you being here today and for preparing your testimony for the committee. we will begin the panel with you, chairman pai. you are now recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle, members of the subcommittee. thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. since 2012 it has been an honor to work with you on many issues, and now as chairman i look forward to striving together to bring digital opportunity to all-americans. i also want to pay tribute to a distinguished member of this subcommittee, representative steve scalise. i had the chance to work with him over the past few years, and i have learned a truth known to many of you. to know him is to like him. my thoughts and prayers continue to be with him and his family during his recovery. the agency has been busy during the past few months. july marks consumer protection month at the fcc it at our open meeting we targeted a triad of
4:45 am
scorings. cramming, in rule call completion, all on the heels of taking down the largest spoofer in our agency's history. august will be rural broadband month. on august 3 we will consider the next steps towards implementing the connect america fund and mobility fund with options. we will explore how to ensure our ongoing collection of broadband deployment data is as accurate and efficient as possible. there is, of course, much more that the agency is doing and much more to be done. i look forward to continue working together on a bipartisan basis to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers and public safety, and improve the fcc's processes and procedures. my testimony today will focus on two issues i believe are ripe for legislative action. first, i applaud the subcommittee for promoting legislation to reauthorize the fcc for five years. i'm eager to work with the subcommittee to advance it. i want to highlight one particular provision entitled
4:46 am
"deposits of bidders to be deposited in treasury." that provision is absolutely critical if our nation is going to lead the world in 5g. without it the fcc won't be able to launch large spectrum auctions and be able to feature. here is why. the communications act requires that up front payments made by bidders and spectrum auctions be deposited in an interest bearing account at a financial institution. at a recent regulatory requirements have dissuaded private institutions from holding these up front payments. public institutions too have indicated that going forward they have no interest in establishing these special purpose accounts that will be necessary to offer such services. as a result, despite repeated efforts by fcc and treasury staff, no financial institution is now willing to hold upfront payments in an interest bearing account or a large spectrum auction. thus, the fcc currently has no way to comply with the law and no way to move forward with any
4:47 am
such auction. that is why i appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to address the sish. a simple fixed contained in the draft legislation, the fcc would again be able to schedule large spectrum auctions by allowing up front payments to be deposited at the treasury. second, i would like to update the subcommittee on the post incentive auction transition process. july 12th was the deadline for television broadcasters that will be repacked to submit concepts to the commission. two days later the fcc announced the aggregate amount of the estimated cost reported by broadcast television stations and multi-channel video programming distributors or mvpds eligible for reimbursement was $2.115 billion. however, we caution that we expected to receive additional estimates from mvpds and a smaller number of stations. in recent days the fcc received several additional estimates and the aggregate total of estimated cost has increased to
4:48 am
$2.139 billion. given the estimates we have received to date, wants all initial estimates are received, the total will be below $2.2 billion. looking beyond the initial round of estimates, the aggregate total of estimated repacking cost will continue to change through amendments and independent review during the transition process. for these reasons, the fcc cannot definitively report today exactly how much the repack will cost. the final number could be lower or higher than the current $2.139 billion. we do expect the final number to be above the $1.75 billion congress has provided the commission to reimburse affected broadcast stations and mvpds. as a result, unless congress acts to raise the $1.75 billion cap, the substantial likelihood is local broadcasters will be required to pay some portion of the repacking cost out of their own pockets. i would be happy to work with
4:49 am
the subcommittee to address this important issue. chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you once again for holding this hearing. i look forward to answering your questions and to continuing to work with you and your staffs in the time to come. thank you, madam chair. >> and he yields back right on time. commissioner clyburn, you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share my priorities for advancing competition, strengthening viewpoint diversity and ensuring consumers are always put first. last week i had the privilege of traveling to marietta, ohio. it was there i heard countless stories from individuals, businesses and local government leaders who for no other reason than their geographic location and maybe a slight income gap find themselves on the wrong side of the digital and opportunities divide in
4:50 am
appalachia. too many families in rural america and even many urban communities are suffering from poor to no connectivity and substandard service. that to add insult to injury is simply unaffordable. i believe, however, if we commit as an agency to put the interests of consumers and small businesses first, we will be able to truly say that we are fulfilling our statutory mandate to serve the public interest. allow me to spend the majority of my testimony today further explaining how the commission can achieve this goal. among my top priorities is preserving the commission's 2015 open internet rules. but just what is this administration's response to the more than now 12 million commenters who express their views with the commission? to propose a dismantling of the bright line rules of the road we adopted in 2015 and were upheld
4:51 am
by the d.c. circuit last year. we need to hit the pause button and begin serious discussions about the broader implications of undoing our classification of broadband as a title 2 service. take, for example, consumer privacy. in a world without title 2, not only will the fcc be forever barred from addressing consumer privacy in a broadband world, it is unclear that any agency will ever hold that authority. similarly, when it comes to our efforts to expand the deployment of broadband including in rural america, taking away title 2 for broadband undercuts our ability to ensure universal service support for broadband by taking away our clearest choice of authority to make sure all-americans are connected. undoing our classification of broadband as a title 2 service also harms the fcc's ability to
4:52 am
enable competition. without title 2, it will be far more difficult for the commission to enact policies to promote competition. second, i have been a tireless leader and defender of the fcc's lifeline program and their need for there to be affordable connectivity for all-american consumers. the reality is that it is $80 to $100 broadband bill is simply out of reach for americans struggling to meet -- make ends meet. moving forward, we have a choice to make as a commission. will we be short sighted and weaken a program designed to assist our nation's most vulnerable, or will we commit to constructively address and fix any remaining issues? third, i remain committed to delivering just and reasonable rates for the 2.7 million children who have been hampered in their quest to communicate
4:53 am
with an incarcerated parent. i am thankful for the leadership of congressman bobbie rushing on the subcommittee who for years has fought for real reform. rest assured, i will continue fighting to ensure that inmates and their loved ones do not have to pay several thousand percent of what a non-incarcerated person pays just to stay in touch. fourth, i am a strong believer in the need for greater viewpoint diversity across our public airwaves. however, the commission has taken several highly concerning steps this year to derail that goal, including reinstating the technologically obsolete ua kep discount by reinstituting and maintaining this loophole that belongs in a regulatory trash heap, the commission has signalled its willingness to allow a single broadcast station group to reach nearly 80% of the
4:54 am
u.s. households in a way that is non-transparent to the public and enables a nearly doubling of the ownership thereto sole set by this body in 2004. finally, i would like to share some views about the commission's work around broadband-enabled health care, if you would. last month the commission's connect to health task force released an update of a popular broadband mapping tool. our latest data shows there are 214 counties, 175 of which are majority ruled, where broadband access is below 50% and diabetes and obesity rates are above the national average. in a late breaking update, i am pleased to report that as of friday the fcc has reopened its broadband health proceeding for additional comments. equipped with this information and working with our federal
4:55 am
partners at hhs, the va and the fcc will be better positioned to target those double burden counties. in conclusion, let me say that i always stand ready to work with my colleagues, this subcommittee, state and local partners and business leaders to advance policy that puts consumers first and ensures our communication's landscape remains the envy of the world. i thank you very much for allowing me more time. i am very enthusiastic about being here as you can tell by my statement, and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. the remaining time i don't have. >> thank you, commissioner clyburn. we're enthusiastic about having you here and we thank you for your dedication on those issues. commissioner o'rielly, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member doyle and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss the important topic before you today. i commend the subcommittee for its continued focus on the federal communications
4:56 am
commission and i recommit to making myself available as a resource if i can be of any assistance to the subcommittee in any manner in the future. i sincerely appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to examine issues relevant to reauthorizing of the commission. i believe it is incredibly valuable and important any time congress -- excuse me -- any time congress articulates its views via legislation on the commission's work including funding levels, procedures and substantive issues. on that note, let me lend my strong support for the raft dree authorization bill before you today. as an aide to the issues, i humbly suggest 15 process improvements in my written testimony that could be included in many reauthorization. it would benefit from being in the statue so that future commissions continue chairman pai's process reform direction. i would be remiss if i didn't
4:57 am
include request for modifications to enforcement authority to address the consistency problem of pirate broadcasting. there appears to be interest by policy makers to provide additional federal funding to expand broad bas to americans. if this were to occur, i hope the subcommittee would adopt or look to the commission's high cost plam as a mechanism to distribute such funding as opposed to using other existing federal programs or creating a new program. additionally, to succeed at the next technological challenge wireless providers will need two important ingredients, access to sufficient mix of spectrum bands and reduced barriers to installation of wireless equipment. while the commission has been actively re-allocating existing bands for mobile purposes with hopefully more to come, there remains obstacles imposed by state, local and tribal
4:58 am
government hampering the ability of providers to serve americans. on another topic as chairman pai noted, the commission is in early stages of repacking broadcasters that either didn't participate or weren't selected as part of our generally successful process to re-allocate broadcaster spectrum for new wireless services. while the commission will need to review and scrub the broadcaster cost estimates to ensure only legitimate charges are reimbursed, it does appear there may be a need for additional financial resources from congress. accordingly, the subcommittee should keep a close eye on the repacking cost estimates as our process continues and may want to initiate a related legislative drafting process soon. certainly if it is determined that additional limited funding is needed to complete a successful repack, i would fully support such action and would gladly help the subcommittee and congress in any way. this concludes my testimony. thank you, madam chair. >> thank the gentleman for his testimony. this concludes the testimony portion, and we will now move to
4:59 am
the questions. i will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. as many of you have said and we have seen in these opening statements, there is an ongoing dispute about the impacts of title 2 reclassification on investment. we hear it doesn't hurt, we hear it does hurt. in a lot of ways this is a key metric of the debate as the one thing we can all agree on is that investment is the key to massive broadband deployment, that we need to connect to all-americans to the economic engine of the internet, and it affects education, it affects health care, as ms. clyburn mentioned. it affects economic development and the creation of jobs. an analysis by deloitte consulting estimated we need an investment much 130 to 150 billion in fiber infrastructure over the next five to seven years to meet our needs.
5:00 am
so private investment is critical, but i fear we have put a kink in that investment pipeline with title 2. as i noted in my opening, we are seeing decreasing capital expenditures by our largest broadband providers. some of my colleagues contend otherwise based on different studies measuring different parameters. senator markey continu tended l week that no publicly traded ifc has reported to investors title 2 has negatively impact investment in networks. chairman pai, have you seen other information regarding the impact title 2 is having on broadband providers? >> thank you for the question, chairman blackburn. we have seen evidence raised that suggests concerns that these rules have impacted infrastructure investment. for example, with respect to the 12 largest facilities-based internet service providers in the united states, we have culled the 10 k's of those 12
5:01 am
isps, each of which is required under law to report to securities and exchange commission any significant risk to the business going forward. each of them has suggested the title 2 regulations in fact represent a significant risk to their businesses. with the indulgence of the cherry wou chair, i would like to enter those in the record. >> without objection. >> additionally i have heard myself from smaller providers these rules impacted infrastructure. i held a round table a couple of weeks ago in maryland where antietam said they pulled that because of these rules. we want to test the provision which is why we opened a notice for proposed rule making so we can figure out what the facts are, again make the appropriate judgment. >> thank you for that. you know, i was -- kind of chuckled a little bit. "new york times" had an article in -- i think it was this weekend saying that infrastructure is fast becoming
5:02 am
an afterthought. but we hear from our local and state elected, it is the number one infrastructure issue. they want to talk about broadband more than anything else. they don't care how they get it, whether it is wire line or fiber or fixed wireless or whatever. mr. chairman, you were kind enough to come to my district and this was something we had planned last fall and executed in february and did a broadband seminar. you talked about some of the things the commission is doing to make it easier for providers to deploy wired and wireless broadband. just touch on some of those components, things that you all can do that will help ease the way to achieving the goal we all want, which is to have the country served by broadband. >> thank you for the question. two big buckets of reforms, one involves the federal subsidy programs we oversee and the other involves regulatory reforms. with regard to federal subsidies
5:03 am
the fcc in my first month as chairman adopted connect america funds and to mobility fund to ensure both stick and 4g lgte broadband is pushed out to parts of america. on august 3 rld we will be taking testimony to ensure those auctions happen in a timely way. with respect to regulatory reforms i set up a broadband deployment advisory committee focusing on how fcc in koopgs with federal, state and local can cooperate to promote broadband deployment. we took steps to promote either siding of wireless infrastructure, towers and the like. make it easy to deploy fiber through things that we can. they may not be the highest profile issues that the agency works on but in terms of your constituents, and i daresay con stitt yend yents around the country it is number one thing to impact their ability to get on the right side of that divide in years to come. >> i thank you for that.
5:04 am
i will just note the repack we think is also important as we look at the broadband deployment, and the estimates have been filed and the audit process has started and we need to give some time for that to play out. but we're going to be watching the repack to be sure it is conducted efficiently and on time so the spectrum is put to work. i yield five minutes to the ranking member, mr. doyle, for questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner clyburn, let me ask you with regards to the open air mat nay comments coming in. when you talk to people in review comments about the open internet order, what gives you pause in repealing the rule? >> what gives me pause is hearing what they say they need and what the internet enables. in the conversations a lot of times we only talk about one part of the equation. if you are really talking about an equation, you are talking about at least two parts. what is the investment, what do people need, and what can they
5:05 am
afford. so we really, really have to talk about what this investment means in the communities, what people -- what expectations they have when they're starting their businesses and the like, and what i'm hearing from people is they want options, they want access, they want opportunities and they want to be protected by an agency that i'm afraid right now is turning their back on them. >> thank you. commissioner o'rielly, what kind of comment would cause you to oppose the commission's open internet order? >> as i said, i previously expressed my thoughts on the issue at length and i'm looking to the record to determine if anything changes in my mind. i'm looking for substantive comments over -- >> give me an example of a substantive comment that would -- >> economic analysis and real -- you know, real evidence of harm to consumers versus some of the material that i've been getting on the comments so far. i mean people talk about 12 million comments. many of those comments are empty and devoid of any value in my
5:06 am
opinion. >> i'm sure there's a few empty and devoid in there, but amongst the 12.3 million i would imagine there are some that address some of the concerns you just mention, too. i hope you do go through those comments and we'll hold you to that kind of analysis. chairman pai, the same question for you. what kind of comment would cause you to change your mind and not go forward? >> i think, congressman, as commissioner o'rielly pointed out if there's an economic analysis that shows credibly that infrastructure investment has increased dramatically, if in response to some of our inquiries that we hear from people in the internet, some startups to consumers, but there's credible evidence or the scenic wanon of an open internet and without them there's no way they would be able to thrive, that the american's overall internet would suffer. that's what we take seriously. that's part of the reason i said at my confirmation hearing we
5:07 am
did not want to issue a declaratory, that the rules would be null and void. we wanted to have a full and fair notice and comment process to ensure we listen to those voices. >> i hold you to that analysis and i hope as the comments are coming in, and 12.3 million comments at least in the time i've been in this congress is more public comment than i've seen on any other issue before the fcc. i'm certain amongst them are that type of analysis, and i hope you pay attention to it. let me ask you another question, mr. chairman. the context of the opener internet order, it seems to me the analysis you cited about isp investment seems to be one-sided. you talk about broadband investment by isps alone as an indication of the health of the marketplace. but you discount investments being made by edge providers. you know, the thesis of an open internet order was to promote this virtual cycle of investment and innovation online.
5:08 am
why aren't you talking about edge providers, the investments that they're making and the jobs that they're creating? >> i appreciate the question, congressman. obviously everyone as chairman blackburn pointed out favors a free and open internet. the great challenge however is there are millions of americans and i vited them from west virginia to south dakota, on the wrong side of the divide. they're not getting the access they need to be able to participate in the digital economy. to the extent the rules are impacting infrastructure investment, my fear is those folks will be left out of some of the benefits we get in terms of better education, health care and the like. we want to understand how are the rules impacting infrastructure investment. along with that, what are the cons and effects of greater infrastructure investment on those types of companies. you know, i visited ace pointed out in testimony before at another committee, i have been to feed lots in kansas and see the power broadband can bring in terms of greater agricultural activity. two weeks ago in virginia i saw the power brad band connection can have some treating an
5:09 am
emergency room patient before the patient arrives at the hospital. these are kcritical application. obviously going forward they're greater dimensions than just infrastructure investment, but those core investments in the network are critical if every american is going to be able to thrive in the 21st century. >> madam chair, i see my time has expired but i hope we have a chance to submit more questions to fcc for response. >> the gentleman's request is noted. >> thank you. >> i now recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. walden. >> thank you, chairman. appreciate that. again to all of our commissioners, thank you foreign lightening with us with your comments and testimony. chairman pai, there's been talk of continued uncertainty around the future of net neutrality. are you opposed to net neutrality? >> congressman, i consistently said i favor free and open internet as i think many of this committee and most americans do. >> commissioner clyburn, are you opposed to net neutrality? >> i am not opposed to net neutrality. i am in favor, but using the
5:10 am
strongest legal tools at our disposal to up hold it. >> commissioner o'rielly, are you opposed to net neutrality? >> i agree with the chairman. i support an open internet. the term net neutrality means so many different things these days than it once did, so i can't -- signing up for net neutrality is -- the current definition, means that every path be treated identically, and that's not supported by the current activities of the internet. so i don't support that definition of net neutrality, no. >> well, i know you have to make some decisions based on the comments. but i guess one of my comments as the reply comments are due fairly soon, and, chairman pai, do you expect to act quickly once the record closes? >> congressman -- >> what are your thoughts in terms of timelines, not in terms of your decision? >> mr. chairman, we are going to move as promptly as we can, but obviously there's a voluminous record as ranking member doyle pointed out. we are bound by the administrative procedure act and section thereof to find
5:11 am
substantial evidence for whatever conclusion we reach, and we're going to review the record fully and fairly to make sure we make the appropriate judgment. more concerned with getting it right than getting it done quickly. >> as you know, part of what we're working on today is continuation from the last congress in terms of getting more transparency in the process at the fcc. making more of what you do more public sooner, then more people can participate in the process that we all value. are there issues in this draft that we're looking at -- it is a discussion draft, too, for all of my colleagues. we put it out there well in advance so we can get input and make it bipartisan hopefully, and i think there are bipartisan positions in it. would you care to comment about what we're putting forward and your thoughts on it and how the commission might be affected by implementation of these changes? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that the process forum suggested in the draft bill are
5:12 am
largely improvements upon the way fcc does business, and i find myself broadly in support. for example, think there's bipartisan agreement on relaxing the sunshine act restriction. i would love seeing my fellow commissioners here at the witness table, i would love to see them together as a commission more often so we can collaborate in ways that benefit the public interests in the fcc's decisionmaking. >> that's been a bipartisan piece of this discussion draft i think all alone. commissioner clyburn, do you wish to comment on some of this? i know things have shifted at the committee since we last took this -- >> i noticed. >> yes. are you more in favor of more of the transparency provisions in our bill now or -- >> well, i will say i'm more in favor of transparency. i'm more in favor of us being able to do, especially the last -- you know, i've been talking about that for a number of years. not final decisionmaking, but decisionmaking process before us, us being able to talk about
5:13 am
things building up to, and so i think that with the proper notice and the proper protections, you know, that enhances transparency and decisionmaking and i will be for any platform that will allow that to happen. >> and making the draft text public ahead of time, more of that we proposed, do you support that? >> meaning our internal draft -- we are still in an evaluation mode. so far i haven't heard any major complaints. >> okay. good. commissioner o'rielly, what about what we're putting forward here for consideration? >> i support the legislation, draft legislation that's been put before us. i think -- i put 15 new ideas in my testimony that could be included if you were so inclined to do so. i think that the text itself, you know, on sunshine reform is valuable. i probably would go a little further, but i'm not trying to criticize the provision. i just don't know how often we would use it as drafted. i really appreciate the things on the cost benefit analysis that's been so lacking in our
5:14 am
decisionmaking for so long. so i think it is a very important step for the committee. >> okay. chairman pai, do you want to comment on that? >> if i could add one observation in addition to what has been previously -- one caveat i would add for the committee's consideration is in enforcement matters for due process noted for other reasons, it may be impractical for us to publish the decision before a commissioner vote. that's one much the things i would add. for transparency, but there are different considerations when it comes to law enforcement matters. >> that's a good point. thank you, madam chair. i real ields my time has expired. again, thanks to all of you. we appreciate your suggestions, your counsel on how we meet get it right because that's what we want to do, is make the fcc the role model for good, transparent public process. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. pallone for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i wanted to ask at least two questions. one to you, chairman, and one to
5:15 am
commissioner clyburn. my question to the chairman is numerous press accounts have detailed how your policies have benefitted sinclair broadcast group. there's also been speculation that the trump administration has been in touch with your office about a number of these policies. so i wanted to give you a chance to respond to those allegations and specifically why you tell us what the administration has said either to you or to anyone in your office about sinclair or the uhf discount? >> thank you for the young, congressman. no one in the white house or the administration generally has mailed any representations to me about any fcc proceeding relating to that company. they've not asked me to take any particular action or expressed views on merits, and certainly not with respect to the uhf skounlt. >> what about the press accounts that detailed how your policies benefitted sinclair broadcast group, did you want to respond to that? >> chairman, congressman, i would be happy to do so. if you look at any of our regulatory actions, they're not
5:16 am
designed to benefit any particular company or segment of the industry. they're simply meant to take a view of the marketplace as it stands and the law written by congress. with the uhf skounlt it was a sim million matter. to the extent the agency considering the uhf discount reforms it has to consider the national cap. now, not presupposing what the uhf discount policy should be or what the national cap should be, but the point is simply made then and i make to you today, the two go together. one cannot consider a without considering b. >> thank you. let me ask commissioner clyburn. i plan to file comments at the fcc in the next few weeks that explain how maintaining net neutrality protections at the fcc is essential to protecting free speech online and to creating jobs across the country. now, the gop and members of the commission focus on the legal authority of the fcc, but in my opinion ignore the benefits of net neutrality that would be lost if it is repealed.
5:17 am
i think the gop plan details potential costs of regulation without mentioning these benefits. so i just wanted to ask you if you could tell me what in your opinion benefits exist with strong net neutrality protections at the fcc and what will be lost with the repeal? >> in terms of the benefits, particularly -- i mentioned i was in appalachia. when you have a small business that owner that might be worried whether her website or her experience would be throttled or negatively impact, that's the type of uncertainty that no small business should worry about when it comes to most enabling platform of our time. you know, when it comes to people being able to access, you know, a health care website or their professional, health care professional, for anybody to wonder whether or not some traffic would be favored, one or the other, that is very
5:18 am
unsettling. so when we talk about strong, open internet rules, what we're talking about is the capacity for all of obusinesses, all of individuals to have access, to be better -- better them, to be better business owners, to have access to content that will enable, educate and inspire. so it is very important for the rules of the road to be clear, for people to know that they're protect. this platform to be open an free and transport. if not, you're going to have bottle necks that will throttle experiences and throttle economic and other opportunities. >> thank you so much. let me go back to the chairman since i haven't time for the third question. last week i introduced the viewer protection act, and this bill will provide extra funds for the incentive auction prepacking process to ensure consumers don't lose access to local stations that they can rely on. i wanted to thank you to your prior commitment to making sure
5:19 am
that the stations will not be forced off the air during this process, and i also appreciate your statements that you believe congress needs to act to provide additional funds to this effort. now, one issue in my bill that i think has been overlooked is making sure the consumers are properly educated about the process and what they need to do to keep their signal, and i'm particularly concerned about minority communities that may be rely on foreign language stations. can you, chairman, walk us through how much funding the fcc put aside for consumer education and explain your plans to make sure consumers know how to keep their signal? i guess you have 20 seconds. >> thank you for the question, congressman. first and foremost i kmenld you for that legislation. i think you tackled one of the issues first and foremost in the views of viewers around the country. the fcc has not been allocated funding by congress specifically for that function. to the extent we can, we onl want to do as much outreach as possible to let people know if there's going to be a channel reassignment or other -- or other regulatory decision that might impact their ability to view the station of their
5:20 am
choice. we will be happy to work with you and your staff on your bill and going forward. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairwoman. >> the gentleman yields back. vice-chairman lance, you are recognized for five minutes for questions. >> thank you very much, madam chair. regardless of your opinion on the 2015 internet rules, i think there's at least one matter on which we should be able to agree, that a legislative fix is preferable to the ping-ponging we have seen play out recently at the fcc. anything the fcc has done in this policy space has proven to be temporary and i don't think it is good public policy. i believe a vast amount of the agency's squares resources have gone into this issue for the last ten years or so. so to the chair and the distinguished members of the commission, i ask each much you the following question.
5:21 am
what would provide greater certainty for broadband internet providers, online innovators and internet using, continually changing regulatory regimes or legislation to establish clear authority and bright line rules of the road to protect consumers and innovators and encourage investment? i will start with you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman. i believe that legislation would provide greater certainty to consumers and companies alike. >> madam commissioner? >> i believe we already have certainty. i believe we've already followed your guidelines with title 2. title 2 is a part of a congressional creation, and title 2 has been upheld by the courts. >> and if i might follow up, you don't favor any amendment of title 2 in this area? >> i will reserve judgment on that. i will favor anything that will improve and enhance our ability
5:22 am
to connect america. >> and was title 2 initiated as i understand it in the 1930s, is that right? >> you're probably right, something to check. i get a d-minus for not knowing the answer to that precisely. i'll get back to you. >> if you get a d-minus, i'm probably at the level of that. so we'll work together on that. commissioner o'rielly? >> i fully support legislation and it is the only way we will get lasting peace on the issue. my colleague highlighted in her comments the rules of the road need to be clear, but there cannot be clear rules of the road if you have a general conduct standard that rolls about and does whatever it wants at any time done by the bureau of staff. i think that legislation is the only way to address this. >> and, commissioner o'rielly, has there ever been a definitive ruling by the supreme court of the united states on this issue? >> no, there has not. >> is that the consensus of the commission, that this has not been fully addressed by the
5:23 am
supreme court? commissioner pai, chairman pai? >> congressman, when you say with respect to this, the supreme court in the brand x case in 2005 blessed the fcc's application of title 1 regulation to broadband. >> brand x was a little more than ten years ago. yes. given the response of the members of the fcc and, of course, i hope there will be a full complement of commissioners, i think that we should continue to pursue this question because i think the public deserves certainty in this area as do those in the community, but certainly in my judgment this is paramount for the american people. another issue, chairman pai, it is critically important that the united states win the race to 5g as it means significant investment and job creation here. a recent report has suggested that 5g will bring three million
5:24 am
new jobs and half a trillion dollars in increased gdp. i'm concerned that other countries may get there first, including china, japan, and even the eu, a series of countries. in your opinion how important is it to make sure that the united states wins the race regarding 5g? >> it is absolutely critical, congress. i would say that's not just out of parochial concerns, but i think america's internet economy has demonstrated itself over the years to be one of the most innovative. 5g heralds a special thing, and we want those technologies to develop in the united states. those are high-quality jobs that could create a huge amount of opportunity across the country. i am speaking for the fcc at least, i think we are focused on securing that prize as best we can for the united states. >> thank you. commissioner clyburn, your
5:25 am
thoughts? >> i'm looking forward to working an continue to do things in expedited member, but we need to make sure that no part of this country should be out, without the opportunity for what 5g has to offer and only with local and federal engagement will we be able to win that race. >> thank you. my time has expired. i will follow up with you, commissioner o'rielly, later. thank you, madam chair. >> and mr. welch, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i have five minutes and i want to have three points. one about the open internet, number two real broadband and, number three, the mobility fund. just to comment on the open internet, everybody says they're for an open internet. the question i have is why change the existing regime where everyone agrees there's an open internet? what i understand is the isps are afraid of "heavy regulation" but say they won't do anything different, but a lot of folks in the public are concerned that that won't be the case. so that's a question i think the
5:26 am
proponents of change have to answer, why change it. second, on rural broadband, chairman pai, as you know it is inkre incredibly important to us in vermont, working with mr. kramer as well, to have open internet. rural america is being left behind. the promise of the 1960 -- the 1996 act has been broken. rural internet is not the same speeds in this -- and the same capacity as we have in urban areas. there's now a potential opportunity with the repacking in the right space, as you are aware, and there's a challenge because we want to make sure that our broadcasters have signals that are strong and they don't suffer interference, but there are many now who are ceding that this white space is technological development that provides an opportunity for inexpensive build out in effect of broadband.
5:27 am
the question i have for you is where you are on that and where the fcc is on that? we have -- anything we can do to get that broadband out, the deployment is a financial issue, i want to do. can you address that? >> absolutely, congressman. i share your ethos as you put it, anything we can do to get broadband out there using any technology -- >> talking white space now. >> right. with white space we are still in the early stages of study. a couple of weeks ago i visited microsoft's project in virginia and i talked to some of the students about that issue that were actively studying it and trying to work with all stakeholders to figure out the right way forward. >> if we can find this technological sweet spot where we're able to protect the signal of our broadcasters, that's important in rural america, too. we want to get our tv stations and local news, but we have a white space where there's a promising opportunity affordably to buildout, you will be
5:28 am
aggressive? >> oh, if the facts warrant it and the law permits it, the fcc will not stand idly. >> commissioner clyburn? >> i long talked about the promises of white spaces providing opportunities particularly in rural communities and communities where business case cannot be made. the promise is there and we -- i will definitely be the wind beneath that to push it along. >> thank you. commissioner o'rielly? >> the white spaces and have for a long time. i will say i don't support them -- the setting aside full power broadcast stations. so if it becomes, frankly, between the two and the broadcast band -- >> let me say as a rural person i'm urging you and the industry to find a way to protect that broadband signal, but to get broad band into rural areas. has to happen. mobility fund. a second issue that's important to us in rural america. there is going to be action on
5:29 am
that, and the question i have, mr. -- chairman pai, some -- depending on how the project is, the information is provided, there will be an opportunity for challenge from some of the rural providers who contest how the decisions are made, and they've got to be given an opportunity to do that. can you assure us that the commission is moving forward with the rule next week that will ensure that the data collection process will lead to a coverage map that accurately, accurately reflect the current mobile broadband makeup in that it allows for smaller carriers -- and this is really important to us -- to have adequate time to potentially challenge data that they believe on their own work is inaccurate? chairman? >> it is certainly my aspiration, congressment, and working with my colleagues in the next nine days we hope to get across the finish like a work product that does that. >> they're going to let them have a seat at the table to
5:30 am
challenge? >> the carriers or my colleagues? >> right. >> absolutely, that's the goal. >> commissioner clyburn. >> you heard that last thing on the record. one of the things i've been pushing and the chair will affirm this, i have been pushing for a robust open challenge pocket, and it is important, and it is important for the information to be granular and 477. we've been pushing for that. >> thank you. madam four, my last four seconds i want to say thank you to commissioner clyburn. >> i would concur with that. why don't we give commissioner o'rielly the opportunity to answer. >> if you are giving me the time, i'm giving it to him. >> i'm giving you the question to allow him to answer. >> thank you. >> that's okay. >> so the gentleman yields back. mr. shimkus, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. as peter welsh has shown, there's so many questions and so little time to deal with you all, you all deal with it on a day-to-day basis. i'm going to pick a few.
5:31 am
first of all, it is no surprise, to chairman pai, on next generation 911, you know, we passed that advancement act of 2012. ann and i have talked about this between ourselves over the last couple of weeks. there was a grant program designed but was never initiated by the fcc. we all know money is needed, but what else can be done to help move next generation 911 forward? >> congressman, i appreciate the question. we certainly are grateful for the promise of ng 911, but that promise has yesterday to be realized in great swaths of the country. as chairman pointed out i was with her in tennessee earlier this year and visited a 911 call center that is using something that traditional call centers don't have. we at the fcc are broadly supportive of ents to proceed
5:32 am
note ng 911. it is an ip based technology, that encouraging the transition away from the old networks towards ip-based networks is absolutely vital. without it these public safety answering points, which don't have the money themselves to fund that transition, are going to be left in the lurch. that is the number one thing we can do. we would be happy to work with members of the committee to figure out if there are legislative tools as well we could support. >> because we know there was a grant program authorized but never initiated. so really we need to find out -- obviously that's an issue, but what else can we do? i do think the communities struggling to try to get to where they want to be, and time is of the essence in the 911 world as we all know. let me go to commissioner o'rielly. just talk -- we've had other subcommittee hearings and, you know, the buzz is there may or may not be an infrastructure bill. we would also say i think members on this subcommittee,
5:33 am
both sides would say if there's an infrastructure bill then obviously broadband deployment areas that are identified appropriately through a good mapping system should be aided and assisted. so if there is direct funding to help deployment, what would be your vision and how that could best occur? >> my argument to the subcommittee in my testimony is the commission -- or that the committee should look to our high cost program and run that universal service as a mechanism to distribute the funding. in the previous -- in the last administration we had an ntia program and some at the department of agriculture. i think those programs were suspect and had a lot of difficulties. we have difficulties in our universal service programs no doubt, but high cost has been something we spent a considerable amount of time trying to minimize the amount of subsidy needed and to target the funding to stretch as far as possible. i think that's a valuable way to
5:34 am
go. >> thank you. and then last but not least, commissioner clyburn, of course appreciate your passion.
5:35 am
5:36 am
5:37 am
5:38 am
5:39 am
5:40 am
5:41 am
5:42 am
5:43 am
5:44 am
5:45 am
5:46 am
5:47 am
5:48 am
5:49 am
5:50 am
5:51 am
5:52 am
5:53 am
5:54 am
5:55 am
5:56 am
5:57 am
5:58 am
5:59 am
6:00 am
6:01 am
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
6:06 am
6:07 am
6:08 am
6:09 am
6:10 am
6:11 am
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
6:15 am
6:16 am
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
6:22 am
6:23 am
6:24 am
6:25 am
6:26 am
6:27 am
6:28 am
6:29 am
6:30 am
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
6:35 am
6:36 am
6:37 am
6:38 am
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
7:00 am
7:01 am
7:02 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on